A rhetorical reply to the Professor about why science does not and should not dictate human motivation or organisation.
We imagine we live in a rational, enlightened society. In such a place, experts would identify issues to be addressed, and goals to be reached, in response to our creation of climate change. Scientific knowledge would be respected and accepted (after peer review, of course), and policy would be fashioned in response.
— David Schlosberg, Professor of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney.
Let’s parse the words. Who is the ‘we’? Without getting into a hairsplitting contest, let me argue that a great many people in Australian society find nothing particularly rational or enlightened about the way it is governed, about their colleagues or neighbours, and sometimes not even about their spouses and children. In this context expecting ‘we’ to apprehend a consensus about what rationality means, let alone what it requires of us, is childishly idealistic. Not at all the sort of nonsense you’d expect from a Professor.
Unquestionably murky Alcatel-Lucent links appear to represent yet another reason for Federal Communications Minister Stephen Conroy to be removed as chief NBN buffoon.
On the scale of Labor ineptitude under Prime Minister Julia Gillard, the continuing incompetence or disingenuousness (or both) of Conroy may be dwarfed, but nevertheless continues to astonish.
It is simply not credible for the Minister to claim that he was unaware of the US corruption investigation into French telecommunications giant Alcatel-Lucent, two former senior executives of which now hold key positions in the National Broadband Network quango, NBN Co Limited.
A report in Today’s Australian newspaper said: ‘Mr [Jean-Pascal] Beaufret, now chief financial officer of NBN Co, had been chief financial officer at Alcatel and then Alcatel-Lucent between 2001 and 2007. Mr [Mike] Quigley, executive chairman of NBN Co, was appointed president and chief operating officer of Alcatel in 2005.’
What follows is the draft of a letter I wrote in preparation for speaking to an Optus representative at management level about my ‘home user’ experiences with the company. The promised call-back never came, but the text accurately represents my experiences.
There are no words to describe the frustration of dealing with the monolithic, unresponsive and arrogantly indifferent bureaucracy Optus has grown into in just ten years. A decade ago I changed all my services from Telstra to Optus for that very reason: abysmal customer focus and service from Telstra. Today I wonder whether I don’t need to do the same thing again, finding a smaller and more customer focused provider actually interested in addressing my needs, supplying good service, and resolving any problems I might have with that service.
Astonished by the call for taxing online sales from overseas suppliers, I wrote a letter to Richard Goyder (the CEO of Wesfarmers, which operates Harris Technology), Gerry Harvey and Dick Smith (see copy of the letter below) in which I used a personal experience to illustrate that it is Australian retail models, not taxation, which drive online sales.
Specifically, I referred to the kind of ‘piss-poor’ retail model that offers only overpriced but still second-best electronic goods, that fails to understand customer needs and wants, and that delivers no value-add for the extra overhead cost of shop-fronts and staff.
Harvey was quoted again today suggesting that Australian consumers should pay a little more at local retailers because it would save jobs and benefit the nation. He should have massaged that message a little more. High staff costs for people who, in my example, could tell me nothing about the kind of technology I was looking for, is a legacy of a union-protected labour market that will not survive international competition at all, regardless of taxing online retailers. If the staff at Dick Smith, Harris Technology and Harvey Norman were stumped by the simple job of advising on PVR (digital TV recording), let alone stocking or being able to order the appropriate electronics, they represent little more than a massive cost for taking my cash without adding any value at all to the transaction. Why would I, and thousands like me, not seek to leverage the hours we are forced to spend researching our own needs by sourcing the best price online. It seems obvious to me that doing that from the comfort of my own desk is infinitely more productive and satisfying than trudging from one store to another, watching the same blank faces and getting the same lack of advice from sales assistants.
There should be serious concerns about Labor proposals for a national broadband infrastructure project.
When the Rudd Labor Government first released its National Broadband Network policy my initial response was to favour the notion of seeing the whole nation wired up for lightning fast internet access, but as time wore on I grew uneasy when I started to contemplate the range of things that could and would go wrong as part of any government intervention into the market.
The Coalition’s ‘me too’ internet policy, released in the rarefied election climate, the ever widening sope of the market intervention taking shape, plus fear of a backdoor implementation of the Rudd/Conroy censorship agenda, forced me to look again more carefully at Labor’s National Broadband Network (NBN) policy.